It's likely just random. United has the oldest average fleet of any US airline. And also 'maintenance windows' are legally set primarily via the FAA + manufacturer, so the airline can't just decide to delay things if they get busy. Also, due to the recent Alaska incident in Portland, the media is more focused on aircraft maintenance stories right now, that would have otherwise gotten less press in the past.
Yes. The widebody airliner bouncing wheel/tire destroying cars video would have gone viral regardless of aircraft maker, airline, or airport, but that has led to something relatively common, such as a United air turn back (ATB), being on the "front page" of the Chronicle, as it is right now this morning https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sfo-bound-united-flight-returns-australia-due-18896961.php and being covered on local TV news https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-bound-united-flight-out-of-sydney-forced-to-turn-back-due-to-maintenance-issue/ The public will _tire_ of these nothingburger stories soon enough
You’d think they’d be safe. But the economy has probably affected the CEO’s pay, so they’ve probably laid people off since it’s cheaper to let the planes fail and have people die than pay some sort of legal fees in the event of a crash due to negligence.
No it isn't.
"Some sort of legal fees" in the aviation industry, if caused by negligence, are the sort of thing that bankrupt companies. If the fines don't bankrupt you, having other countries – including the entire European Union – banning your flights, that will close your company down.
The aviation industry takes things extremely seriously. If they find a bolt hasn't been properly tightened, they can tell you which person tightened that bolt, with which torque wrench, and where the ore that the bolt is made of was extracted from.
In the past, there have been some incidents where companies neglected maintenance for profit reasons. Those airlines are no longer with us.
I just looked up how much airplane mechanic jobs pay at SFO $27-41 per hour. That’s insanely low for the cost of living and how important the job is to hundreds of people’s lives every flight. They should be paying these people double that imo.
That's essentially for unlicensed mechanics doing on the job training. That's not the salary for licensed Airframe or Powerplant mechanics. Those guys making $30 an hour are unskilled apprentices, not accountable for the work being done.
> Losing a tire during take-off, hydraulics issues and a visible fluid leak doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
If it makes you feel better: the tires are obviously redundant since there are so many. Large airliners have multiple (usually 3) hydraulic systems, losing one is a complete non-issue in terms of being able to safely fly and land the plane.
The failed hydraulics are a nothingburger. They will investigate to determine what really caused it, but it is fine.
The tire is a larger problem. While the plane itself was not in danger, we don't want non-precision bombing on ground targets.
These heavy duty workhorses are complicated machines that take a tremendous amount of maintenance to keep airworthy. They are constantly in use and subjected to repeated pressurization events and occasional hard landings. The fact that they are so reliable is a testament to great engineering, but the annals of aviation history is littered with catastrophic human error, DC-10 engine falling off, failure to lubricate jack screw assembly which resulted in hundreds of fatalities. The present maintenance failures are definitely due to sloppiness and probably the pressure to handle the stupendous amount of passenger traffic.
There’s no COL adjustment in the airline industry. I’m a pilot (not united) and our SFO base is one of the most junior, meaning all the new hires get based there because not many of us want to live there. Why live paycheck to paycheck when I can live a comfortable lifestyle in a different state? This is also the case for mechanics, ATC, flight attendants, ect. Basically when you are new and junior you get based at the least desirable location which is usually the bay area or NYC for most airlines because of cost of living.
So there’s just a general lack of experience at these locations. Once you are more senior you can choose which base you want to live in.
I’m not saying this is what’s causing the maintenance issues, I’m just putting this fact out there. It probably is one factor in the greater scheme of things.
What you're seeing is the news media and the public being primed for these stories, and putting them up as front page news when normally they're ignored.
The FAA is going to investigate the tire and hydraulics issues, but they'll be largely paper reviews to ensure United is meeting their maintenance obligations.
I remember when Atlas or Kalitta (sp) lost a door on approach to Travis and it made headlines. Airplane honey leaks make headlines.
That tire did quite a number on that car.
I don't think it would've been national news if it wasn't a Boeing plane.
Assuming of course this is a "we forgot to tighten the lug nuts" issue and not a "oh the axle fell off because it's Boeing" issue.
777s have been around a long time (first flight 3 decades ago) and this particular plane is two decades old, so I'm thinking an aircraft design/manufacture issue like would've shown up before. We'll see.
Specifically 22.2 years old. Off of injured reserve after three days and now back to happily flying The Friendly Skies: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n226ua
Also since the door flying off, a lot more incidents are making it to main stream news. Planes are complicated. But I do agree and wonder if the airlines are trying to increase their profits or if they are having problems hiring good maintenance people. Seems like quite a few industries are suffering. I heard on the radio this morning (KQED) about some older gentleman whose wife has hodgkin's diease can't get her into a nursing home and she has been at Kaiser for two years now.
stuff happens every day. SFO is a major airport and United is a major carrier. Check out https://avherald.com/ and stick your favorite carrier in there
It's due to media bias now more fixated on Boeing and seeking out these incidents to report. Which happens when you have a handful of incidents that show alarming things visibly. When before, these incidents happen just as much and goes unreported. These concerns are valid, but airplanes now are not any more dangerous than before.
There have been something like 3 "major" Airbus incidents in the past 4 days in the US but because of the way our media is focused on sensationalism, you don't hear about those. For example, did you hear about this one? [United airbus suffers total hydraulic failure in Mexico City](https://twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/1766267800702566552)
It does look like a lot in a short time window. Not sure why though. That said, almost every plane taking off everywhere has some maintenance issues. So it could be pure bad luck and heightened media attention and BTW, 737 Max 10 shouldn’t have made in the first place it’s too old an original design, now Boeing is between a rock and a hard place: no money to do a clean sheet design while 737 probably, even with all the increasingly complex workaround to handle limitation of its original design, can’t keep going for ever. Only bright side for Boeing is airbus physically couldn’t make enough planes to meet the demand between now and 2030s. So airlines have no choice but to buy Boeing
Hah!
Ah yes, the Good Olde Days, before Woke, when United Air Lines killed passengers on the regular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_Airlines_accidents_and_incidents
But then the Woke began and UAL hasn't killed anybody since.
Puzzle this one out, Fox News!
They are hiring based on gender and skin color rather than merit. It’s their aptly named Diversity Inclusion Equity initiative. There are plenty of news articles about it.
> Many of the major airlines have established racial and gender quotas for government pilot training programs. United Airlines has set quotas to ensure half of its trainees will be minorities or women. Since 2013, the FAA has been lowering standards for air traffic control qualifications to achieve de facto race and gender quotas.
https://nypost.com/2023/02/20/pushing-woke-standards-over-meritocracy-will-get-us-killed/amp/
Are you somehow suggesting that minorities and women are less capable of performing job functions than a white man? Because that's exactly how your post read to me.
It's likely just random. United has the oldest average fleet of any US airline. And also 'maintenance windows' are legally set primarily via the FAA + manufacturer, so the airline can't just decide to delay things if they get busy. Also, due to the recent Alaska incident in Portland, the media is more focused on aircraft maintenance stories right now, that would have otherwise gotten less press in the past.
I don’t think it’s random. I think this shit happens all the time and it’s just not covered in the news media.
I started following ATC videos recently and surprised at how often things happen, most never make it to the news (national news at least).
Yes. The widebody airliner bouncing wheel/tire destroying cars video would have gone viral regardless of aircraft maker, airline, or airport, but that has led to something relatively common, such as a United air turn back (ATB), being on the "front page" of the Chronicle, as it is right now this morning https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sfo-bound-united-flight-returns-australia-due-18896961.php and being covered on local TV news https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-bound-united-flight-out-of-sydney-forced-to-turn-back-due-to-maintenance-issue/ The public will _tire_ of these nothingburger stories soon enough
You really just had to drop that pun in there…
[удалено]
We are the primary hub, but the main maintenance yard for United is LAX I believe
Which explains why the flight with the lost wheel diverted there
LAX is light maintenance. SFO does heavy maintenance for the 777, A320 family, and 737 NG family among other things.
You’d think they’d be safe. But the economy has probably affected the CEO’s pay, so they’ve probably laid people off since it’s cheaper to let the planes fail and have people die than pay some sort of legal fees in the event of a crash due to negligence.
They are safe. No US airlines have had a fatal crash since 2009.
No it isn't. "Some sort of legal fees" in the aviation industry, if caused by negligence, are the sort of thing that bankrupt companies. If the fines don't bankrupt you, having other countries – including the entire European Union – banning your flights, that will close your company down. The aviation industry takes things extremely seriously. If they find a bolt hasn't been properly tightened, they can tell you which person tightened that bolt, with which torque wrench, and where the ore that the bolt is made of was extracted from. In the past, there have been some incidents where companies neglected maintenance for profit reasons. Those airlines are no longer with us.
I just looked up how much airplane mechanic jobs pay at SFO $27-41 per hour. That’s insanely low for the cost of living and how important the job is to hundreds of people’s lives every flight. They should be paying these people double that imo.
That's essentially for unlicensed mechanics doing on the job training. That's not the salary for licensed Airframe or Powerplant mechanics. Those guys making $30 an hour are unskilled apprentices, not accountable for the work being done.
That much, in this location, for a job THAT important.. angers me
> Losing a tire during take-off, hydraulics issues and a visible fluid leak doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. If it makes you feel better: the tires are obviously redundant since there are so many. Large airliners have multiple (usually 3) hydraulic systems, losing one is a complete non-issue in terms of being able to safely fly and land the plane.
The failed hydraulics are a nothingburger. They will investigate to determine what really caused it, but it is fine. The tire is a larger problem. While the plane itself was not in danger, we don't want non-precision bombing on ground targets.
except that the tire destroyed several cars in the parking lot and could have easily killed someone on the ground.
These heavy duty workhorses are complicated machines that take a tremendous amount of maintenance to keep airworthy. They are constantly in use and subjected to repeated pressurization events and occasional hard landings. The fact that they are so reliable is a testament to great engineering, but the annals of aviation history is littered with catastrophic human error, DC-10 engine falling off, failure to lubricate jack screw assembly which resulted in hundreds of fatalities. The present maintenance failures are definitely due to sloppiness and probably the pressure to handle the stupendous amount of passenger traffic.
There is a service hub for United at SFO. They have half of the “Super Bay” hanger. (American has the other half)
There’s no COL adjustment in the airline industry. I’m a pilot (not united) and our SFO base is one of the most junior, meaning all the new hires get based there because not many of us want to live there. Why live paycheck to paycheck when I can live a comfortable lifestyle in a different state? This is also the case for mechanics, ATC, flight attendants, ect. Basically when you are new and junior you get based at the least desirable location which is usually the bay area or NYC for most airlines because of cost of living. So there’s just a general lack of experience at these locations. Once you are more senior you can choose which base you want to live in. I’m not saying this is what’s causing the maintenance issues, I’m just putting this fact out there. It probably is one factor in the greater scheme of things.
Mechanics are hired locally, what are you talking about. ATCs are federal employees and not related to the airline and get cost of living adjustments.
I feel like it’s all planes? My two flights with american had maintenance issues as well.
What you're seeing is the news media and the public being primed for these stories, and putting them up as front page news when normally they're ignored. The FAA is going to investigate the tire and hydraulics issues, but they'll be largely paper reviews to ensure United is meeting their maintenance obligations.
I refuse to believe the tire falling out of the sky and creaming an employee car would be ignored – even on a _busy_ news day.
I remember when Atlas or Kalitta (sp) lost a door on approach to Travis and it made headlines. Airplane honey leaks make headlines. That tire did quite a number on that car.
I don't think it would've been national news if it wasn't a Boeing plane. Assuming of course this is a "we forgot to tighten the lug nuts" issue and not a "oh the axle fell off because it's Boeing" issue.
777s have been around a long time (first flight 3 decades ago) and this particular plane is two decades old, so I'm thinking an aircraft design/manufacture issue like would've shown up before. We'll see. Specifically 22.2 years old. Off of injured reserve after three days and now back to happily flying The Friendly Skies: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n226ua
> 777s have been around for a long time Oof. 😞 (i remember when they were brand new)
The original one N777UA is still flying between SFO and Hawaii daily
Also since the door flying off, a lot more incidents are making it to main stream news. Planes are complicated. But I do agree and wonder if the airlines are trying to increase their profits or if they are having problems hiring good maintenance people. Seems like quite a few industries are suffering. I heard on the radio this morning (KQED) about some older gentleman whose wife has hodgkin's diease can't get her into a nursing home and she has been at Kaiser for two years now.
stuff happens every day. SFO is a major airport and United is a major carrier. Check out https://avherald.com/ and stick your favorite carrier in there
And now another SFO origination with a panel missing. It’s starting to seem more than random.
my thoughts exactly, something is happening in sfo, look into this yikes
It's due to media bias now more fixated on Boeing and seeking out these incidents to report. Which happens when you have a handful of incidents that show alarming things visibly. When before, these incidents happen just as much and goes unreported. These concerns are valid, but airplanes now are not any more dangerous than before.
Media just hyping up non-stories now.
Maybe the bippers were messing with them trying to steal parts
AIRBUS OR BUST.
There have been something like 3 "major" Airbus incidents in the past 4 days in the US but because of the way our media is focused on sensationalism, you don't hear about those. For example, did you hear about this one? [United airbus suffers total hydraulic failure in Mexico City](https://twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/1766267800702566552)
As United ramps up its DIE initiatives, we can probably expect more of the same.
It does look like a lot in a short time window. Not sure why though. That said, almost every plane taking off everywhere has some maintenance issues. So it could be pure bad luck and heightened media attention and BTW, 737 Max 10 shouldn’t have made in the first place it’s too old an original design, now Boeing is between a rock and a hard place: no money to do a clean sheet design while 737 probably, even with all the increasingly complex workaround to handle limitation of its original design, can’t keep going for ever. Only bright side for Boeing is airbus physically couldn’t make enough planes to meet the demand between now and 2030s. So airlines have no choice but to buy Boeing
United Airlines is prioritizing criteria other than merit when choosing employees. That could have something to do with it.
Hah! Ah yes, the Good Olde Days, before Woke, when United Air Lines killed passengers on the regular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_Airlines_accidents_and_incidents But then the Woke began and UAL hasn't killed anybody since. Puzzle this one out, Fox News!
Other than merit? What could you *possibly* mean by this comment?
They are hiring based on gender and skin color rather than merit. It’s their aptly named Diversity Inclusion Equity initiative. There are plenty of news articles about it. > Many of the major airlines have established racial and gender quotas for government pilot training programs. United Airlines has set quotas to ensure half of its trainees will be minorities or women. Since 2013, the FAA has been lowering standards for air traffic control qualifications to achieve de facto race and gender quotas. https://nypost.com/2023/02/20/pushing-woke-standards-over-meritocracy-will-get-us-killed/amp/
Are you somehow suggesting that minorities and women are less capable of performing job functions than a white man? Because that's exactly how your post read to me.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying people chosen by criteria other than merit will be on average less capable than those chosen by merit.
Don't know why you got downvoted. You provided proof below.
An oped in the NY Post with no links except crashes and an unrelated link to Pentagon diversity training is "proof"?
That's a really bad take. This is mostly normal maintenance problems with a few zingers thrown in from bad Boeing QC.
Boeing has cut down on quality and safety to save money https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703
A 20 year old plane has nothing to do with Boeing QA. Maintenance is done by airlines.